Hurst v. Youngelson
354 F. Supp. 3d 1362
N.D. Ga.2019Background
- Plaintiff Brezzy Hurst worked as a nude entertainer at The Follies (WBY, Inc.) from ~Nov 2010–Apr 2014 and was paid directly by customers; Defendants classified her as an independent contractor.
- The Follies charged dancers a "house fee," required purchase of drink tickets, set cover and minimum dance prices, controlled admissions and hours, and required breathalyzer/See Ya pass before dancers could retrieve car keys.
- Most of Hurst's income came from customer-paid table/VIP dances and tips; the club did not record or distribute those customer payments as employer service charges.
- Defendants White and Youngelson each own 50% of WBY and retained ongoing operational oversight (selecting managers, receiving nightly revenue texts, visiting the club).
- Parties cross-moved for summary judgment on employee status, individual liability, enterprise coverage, creative-professional exemption, offset defense, and FLSA minimum-wage violations; the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and denied Defendants’.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hurst was an FLSA "employee" or an independent contractor | Hurst was economically dependent on the club; the economic‑reality factors support employee status | The relationship had contractor-like features (control of schedule, ability to "hustle", no set shifts), and less control than other clubs | Employee: Court applied the economic‑reality test and found all factors weighed for employment; Hurst was an employee |
| Whether White and Youngelson are "employers" under the FLSA | They exercised operational control, set the misclassification policy, oversaw managers, and retained active oversight | They delegated day‑to‑day operations to managers and did not personally recruit entertainers or give direct routine instructions | Employers: Court found both individuals had sufficient control and ownership connection to be joint employers |
| Whether WBY is covered by the FLSA and whether the creative‑professional exception or offset applies | WBY is an enterprise engaged in commerce; Hurst is not a creative professional; tips are not employer service charges, so no offset | Defendants did not contest enterprise coverage; argued entertainers are creative professionals and/or service‑charge offsets apply | Court: WBY is an enterprise; creative‑professional exemption does not apply; employer cannot offset minimum wage obligation with customer tips |
| Whether Defendants violated the FLSA minimum‑wage requirements and scope of damages evidence | Hurst seeks unpaid minimum wages because Defendants paid no wages (only allowed dancers to keep customer payments) | Defendants argue plaintiff must identify specific undercompensated workweeks and that take‑home (tips) may meet the wage floor | Violation: Court found Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay required wages; specific unpaid hours/amounts remain for the jury to determine |
Key Cases Cited
- Scantland v. Jeffry Knight, Inc., 721 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2013) (sets out economic‑reality factors for employee/independent contractor analysis)
- Patel v. Wargo, 803 F.2d 632 (11th Cir. 1986) (corporate officer with operational control can be an FLSA employer)
- Mednick v. Albert Enterprises, Inc., 508 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1975) (purpose of FLSA to protect those dependent on employment of others)
- Usery v. Pilgrim Equip. Co. Inc., 527 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir. 1976) (economic‑reality test and "in business for himself" inquiry)
- Reich v. Circle C. Investments, Inc., 998 F.2d 324 (5th Cir. 1993) (adult entertainers considered employees under FLSA where club controls prices and conditions)
- Alvarez Perez v. Sanford‑Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2008) (test for individual employer status focuses on economic reality and operational control)
- Falk v. Brennan, 414 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1973) (multiple simultaneous employers concept under FLSA)
- Harrell v. Diamond A Entm't, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 1343 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (applications of economic‑reality factors to exotic dancers)
- Clincy v. Galardi S. Enters., Inc., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Ga. 2011) (entertainers integral to business; duration and permanence weigh toward employment)